This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Just how many federal laws and regulations are there?

Even a blog at the Library of Congress said that's "nearly impossible" to estimate.

Suffice it to say there are tens of thousands of laws, and multiple regulations and rules for each.

The problem is that the rules and regulation are created by bureaucrats, not members of Congress when they wrote the law, and as such, they sometimes do more than Congress intended. Or allowed.

Now, there's a new artificial intelligence tool that is intended to help voters sort out which rule or regulation goes too far. Just when did some bureaucrat simply go too far and put into writing something Congress didn't intend.

Think, perhaps, of some of the fights that have erupted in recent years. It is allowable for the government to dam a waterway and flood a farmer's land, damaging his crops and walk away from the problem? A rule said OK, but the courts ruled Congress said no.

Or can a federal agency simply confiscate cash from a traveler because they have cash, without filing any charges or beginning any legal case. Multiple agencies have done it; and some court rulings have said no.

There's now a new Nondelegation Project that has been launched by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

It traces "powers Congress has delegated to federal agencies. By systematically linking each federal regulation to its authorizing statute, our database fills a critical gap in understanding the true scope of modern rulemaking by unelected officials," the organization announced.

The project is intended to "decode power delegated to federal agencies. Informed by the legal landscape shaped by Loper Bright and the end of Chevron deference, the Project provides policymakers, litigators, and scholars with a clear, data-driven view of how congressional delegations have enabled the growth of the modern administrative state."

"By tracing regulatory authority back to its statutory roots, the Nondelegation Project supports more accountable governance and stronger legislative oversight."

The tool was developed by Patrick McLaughlin, a visiting research fellow at PLF, and shows whether Congress granted agencies broad, open-ended powers or gave them narrow, specific instructions.

"That distinction is crucial in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in West Virginia v. EPA, which developed the major questions doctrine, and Loper Bright, which restored meaningful judicial review of agency power," the foundation explained.

Critically, it reveals "which regulations may now be vulnerable to challenge."

For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been given by Congress a "general delegation 3,309 times.

For the EPA it's 2,752, and for the Food and Drug Administration it's 1,155 times.

"Americans deserve a government where Congress writes laws, not unelected bureaucrats," said McLaughlin. "This tool sheds light on the extent to which agencies have relied on vague or sweeping grants of authority to expand their reach. It provides lawyers, lawmakers, and the public with a new way to hold the administrative state accountable."